/ world today news/ Great Britain’s long-drawn-out exit from the EU (the use of chemical weapons against Russian citizens on its territory with the subsequent kidnapping, possible murder and obscene scandal surrounding this atrocity) has come to an end.
Officially, England (in our language, unlike in English, this word means both part of the country and the country as a whole) withdrew from the EU on January 31, but the inability of the parties to agree on the terms of Brexit led to the extension of the implementation of European norms by the end of 2020. There are many pitfalls (for example, the issues of state subsidies, fishing and maintaining free communication between Ireland and its northern part belonging to England) and if an agreement is not reached within a reasonable time (for now it is beginning of November), from 1 January only WTO norms will be used for Great Britain. This means an increase in customs tariffs, which will again hit the British economy.
Agreements are hindered not only by the objective obstacles caused by the coronavirus, but also by interests – both political and economic.
British manufacturers, especially in the military-industrial complex, have a significant stake in pan-European programs – and continental competitors will be happy, fueled by a lack of demand, to take their market share for themselves. At the same time, Britain’s accelerated transformation into a “financial boutique” suppressed its real sector and ensured its dependence on imports, mainly European. Thus, the European Union will be able to quickly abandon British goods, and for England such a reorientation of supplies will be difficult. Therefore, the EU does not want a compromise with Britain, which has left it: revenge is a dish that is served in the negotiations.
Remember: the reason for England’s withdrawal from the European Union was the impotence of the European bureaucracy to seriously consider Obama’s proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which is lethal to the EU. In addition to the intolerable free trade area for Europeans with the US, Canada and Mexico, this partnership would de facto turn European countries into regional representations of global, mostly American corporations (through a specific trade dispute settlement mechanism in which corporate representatives , and not of states, are arbitrators).
In addition to the thirst for profit, which is especially valuable in conditions of crisis, the members of the European Union are united by the intention to make the example of England as instructive as possible, to reliably repel the desire of someone who is at least theoretically capable of thinking about it , to get out of the yoke of the completely ideological Brussels bureaucracy. After all, the EU is an area of guaranteed profits for corporations for its developed part, and countries that do not have the specifics of Britain will reduce the profits of those corporations if they leave.
The internal conflict in England itself is also important: leaving the EU deals another blow to its real sector (and to Scotland with its latent separatism, where at least half of British industry is concentrated), strengthening the dominance of financial speculators.
That is why Macron is showing firmness. Thus, the State Secretary to the Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, Clement Bon, pointed out that it is unacceptable for the EU to lose composure and make “unprofitable concessions, unprofitable compromises”.
The question is not only in the disagreements between the French and English branches of this great family, but also in the unity of its strategic interests, which requires a general strengthening of the positions of financial capital, including in England. And for this, the British real sector must be further weakened.
Another reason for Macron’s intransigence is the struggle for European leadership against a retreating Merkel and Germany as a whole, which, after the victory of the “Greens” in 2021, will face the rejection of cheap Russian energy resources and deindustrialization in the interests of the United States and the same global speculative capital.
It is to the prospects for this on both sides of the English Channel that the words of Boris Johnson, seemingly absorbed by the medical and economic crisis, refer: “Things will go very well” and in the conditions of “full autonomy” of British business from the EU.
And the intention of the leaders of the EU member states to insist during their high-level meeting in Brussels on October 15-16 to solidify the deal with England strengthens the position not only of continental Europe at the expense of its eternal enemy, but also of the financial capital of Great Britain itself – at the expense of its real sector.
The City of London’s strategic position, despite the likely transfer of some of its operations to the Continent, will be enhanced by its release from European intrigue and attempts to save sinking Southern (not to mention Eastern) Europe. Therefore, in light of the long-term threat of civil war in the US, England, following the “financial bottom” after the “hard” Brexit, along with Switzerland, may become a desirable “safe haven” for capital around the world.
Translation: V. Sergeev
#Mikhail #Delyagin #Brexit #kick
